Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The protypical Panthers WR


unicar15

Recommended Posts

Every single WR we have brought in here year in and year out are your prototypical "big bodied" WRs. Dwayne Jarrett, Rod Gardner, DJ Hackett, Drew Carter and the list goes on. Why haven't we targeted guys with the same frame and style of play as Steve Smith? Why don't we ever go after the guy who is 5'9" and a punt return specialist?

The Eagles got Desean Jackson last year and he worked out great. They followed last year's draft with Jeremy Maclin (essentially a Jackson clone) because they knew that it had worked the year before. It just seems like instead of going with what works for us we go with the norm and it never works. Go out and get the lightening quick punt returner/receiver this year and maybe we can turn him into the next Steve Smith. Receivers in today's game don't have to be 6'0 tall in order to be good. Give me a team full of Steve Smiths, Wes Welkers, Desean Jacksons any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I miss Drew Carter. He showed some true promise. I hated that he got away. I think our 'devotion' to big WRs has more to do with Moose than Smitty, in that big WRs who can go up and win the battle for the ball is the expectation. I agree though, a good WR is a good WR, period, regardless of size. The thing is, with jake at QB, we may never know who else can be a good WR, seeing how he only sees his primary receiver on any given play. And that's either Smitty or Moose, with Smitty getting most of those looks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carter/Hackett aren't the same type receiver. Tall, but thin.

Wouldn't be terrible to have that type guy. I don't care who it is, but we need a deep threat that's not Smith and a slot guy. And Moose. I'd like those first two attributes to be in one guy, but if not, we need the slot guy more.

I can't imagine this team without Muhammad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need two different types of receivers. If you have two speed guys or two possession receivers it hurts your offense.

Tell that to Philly - Two best receiver are speedsters..their possession WR is a TE

Tell that to SD - Two best receivers are possession...don't have a speedster

Tell that to NYG - Two best receivers are possession..don't have a speedster

You don't HAVE to have any specific type of receiver which is my point. Philly has one of the most explosive offenses this year and their possession receiver is their TE.

Teams do what works for them. Rivers likes throwing to big targets that don't necessarily need a lot of space to operate.

When you think about it, if you have a guy like Steve Smith who can operate in space like a little WR but can also go up and get the ball like a big WR then why do you "need" to get the exact opposite of him?

The bottom line is that we don't "need" a big possession WR to line up opposite of Smitty. What we need is a guy that can create separation and then catch the ball when it is on target. We have never had a guy like that to play opposite of Steve Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that we don't "need" a big possession WR to line up opposite of Smitty. What we need is a guy that can create separation and then catch the ball when it is on target. We have never had a guy like that to play opposite of Steve Smith.

This ^^^^

Someone who has makes people scared to bring that other safety in the box. Thats all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell that to Philly - Two best receiver are speedsters..their possession WR is a TE

Tell that to SD - Two best receivers are possession...don't have a speedster

Tell that to NYG - Two best receivers are possession..don't have a speedster

You don't HAVE to have any specific type of receiver which is my point. Philly has one of the most explosive offenses this year and their possession receiver is their TE.

Teams do what works for them. Rivers likes throwing to big targets that don't necessarily need a lot of space to operate.

When you think about it, if you have a guy like Steve Smith who can operate in space like a little WR but can also go up and get the ball like a big WR then why do you "need" to get the exact opposite of him?

The bottom line is that we don't "need" a big possession WR to line up opposite of Smitty. What we need is a guy that can create separation and then catch the ball when it is on target. We have never had a guy like that to play opposite of Steve Smith.

How about a speed guy and a possession receiver that can run block well works well with our system so that's what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
×
×
  • Create New...